Buying Water Bombers For Australia?
There’s probably much better airframes sitting in the desert than clapped out QF airframes.
Also to fly them in the USA on any forestry contract or anything dept. of state, the aircraft can’t have any local EO’s they all have to be standard with STC’s.
That’s why you see a lot of N reg helicopters in Australia but not the other way.
Also to fly them in the USA on any forestry contract or anything dept. of state, the aircraft can’t have any local EO’s they all have to be standard with STC’s.
That’s why you see a lot of N reg helicopters in Australia but not the other way.
I'm not sure where or how this assumption keeps cropping up in Air Tanker discussions that military crew are just waiting around not flying with spare time to master an entirely new role. In the decade I've been in, I haven't seen military aviation busier than it is now, and that was before Operation Bushfire Assist started. It is just simply not true that the military have the people available to do this, or the aircraft (currently at least). It would be much better suited to a civilian agency with the actual expertise to do the work, not just a slapped together currency to tick off once every 3 months.
Water bombers are impressive in flight, serve a political purpose of being highly visible but in practice are expensive and not a magic pill for putting fires out. It will be interesting to see how they go with the extra assets and hopefully an increase in ground crews to service them, its been interesting to watch LATS and VLATS hit the south coast firegrounds while staging out of Richmond despite having Canberra not far away, especially in the context of a VLAT drop only being effective in containment for 15 minutes according to the CSIRO study.
The only retardant line I saw myself that held so far this season was one that had helicopters bucketing it straight away after the drop. Everything else hasn’t held much at all. There’s been a lot of money painted around the plCe that’s for sure.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read a recent paper on water bombing in Europe, with videos of the Russian scooper and the Canadian aircraft.
They seemed quite effective especially when used to hit fires before they become too ferocious. When used in a continuous loop with three or four aircraft attacking one behind the other they were very effective, especially in hard to get at places.
Rather interesting they used a lot of sea water, wonder what effect that has on the ecology.
They seemed quite effective especially when used to hit fires before they become too ferocious. When used in a continuous loop with three or four aircraft attacking one behind the other they were very effective, especially in hard to get at places.
Rather interesting they used a lot of sea water, wonder what effect that has on the ecology.
What Air Force's Around the World Use the C-130 Hercules Aircraft? - C&S Propeller
no - they bought 2000 over 60 years - they only operate about 100
What Air Force's Around the World Use the C-130 Hercules Aircraft? - C&S Propeller
What Air Force's Around the World Use the C-130 Hercules Aircraft? - C&S Propeller
Also doesn't include marines and coast gaurd aircraft
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather interesting they used a lot of sea water, wonder what effect that has on the ecology
The helos were bucketing sea water to the hotspots less than five minutes away compared to major fresh water supplies almost 30 minutes away. I understand and accept sea water has a potential detrimental effect on the environment (depending on the quantity, of course) but so do bushfires - I know what I'd rather (sea water or uncontained bushfire) and from which the environment probably recovers soonest.
Rather interesting they used a lot of sea water, wonder what effect that has on the ecology.
Now that I've started, may I mention that I've read this thread with considerable interest, because these days after 50 years as a volunteer CFS member, my age now precludes me from going out on a ground appliance - unless it's a very benign incident; however I'm still active and current on air base operation. I'm also party to some of the thinking behind current strategy, both in terms of what equipment (aircraft) we have, and how we use them. I think we have the policies and equipment mix right for our particular combination of circumstances here in the "driest state". Suffice to say that our fleet of AT-802 SEATs and associated observer rotary and fixed wing aircraft* work well for us most of the time. Having LATs at the ready would not (IMHO) have really prevented the rapid forward spread (to any useful degree) at the two major events which put us on the front pages for a few days last month, although they may have assisted in the protection of some assets which were destroyed.
* There is one contracted Skycrane in the fleet which get responded when it's involvement is determined to be beneficial, and LATs are occasionally invited in from the eastern states if they are spare, and again perceived to be useful in a given situation. That's about as far as I want to go - if this were in Jet Blast I might venture a little further into reasons, but politics are involved too, so best I stay clear. Thank you all for an interesting read.
I've often wondered about that. Sea water has (to my recollection) never been used on "mainland" South Australia. I also don't know that sea water was used at all in either the air or ground attack on the current Kangaroo Island event and I rather doubt that it was.
Now that I've started, may I mention that I've read this thread with considerable interest, because these days after 50 years as a volunteer CFS member, my age now precludes me from going out on a ground appliance - unless it's a very benign incident; however I'm still active and current on air base operation. I'm also party to some of the thinking behind current strategy, both in terms of what equipment (aircraft) we have, and how we use them. I think we have the policies and equipment mix right for our particular combination of circumstances here in the "driest state". Suffice to say that our fleet of AT-802 SEATs and associated observer rotary and fixed wing aircraft* work well for us most of the time. Having LATs at the ready would not (IMHO) have really prevented the rapid forward spread (to any useful degree) at the two major events which put us on the front pages for a few days last month, although they may have assisted in the protection of some assets which were destroyed.
* There is one contracted Skycrane in the fleet which get responded when it's involvement is determined to be beneficial, and LATs are occasionally invited in from the eastern states if they are spare, and again perceived to be useful in a given situation. That's about as far as I want to go - if this were in Jet Blast I might venture a little further into reasons, but politics are involved too, so best I stay clear. Thank you all for an interesting read.
Now that I've started, may I mention that I've read this thread with considerable interest, because these days after 50 years as a volunteer CFS member, my age now precludes me from going out on a ground appliance - unless it's a very benign incident; however I'm still active and current on air base operation. I'm also party to some of the thinking behind current strategy, both in terms of what equipment (aircraft) we have, and how we use them. I think we have the policies and equipment mix right for our particular combination of circumstances here in the "driest state". Suffice to say that our fleet of AT-802 SEATs and associated observer rotary and fixed wing aircraft* work well for us most of the time. Having LATs at the ready would not (IMHO) have really prevented the rapid forward spread (to any useful degree) at the two major events which put us on the front pages for a few days last month, although they may have assisted in the protection of some assets which were destroyed.
* There is one contracted Skycrane in the fleet which get responded when it's involvement is determined to be beneficial, and LATs are occasionally invited in from the eastern states if they are spare, and again perceived to be useful in a given situation. That's about as far as I want to go - if this were in Jet Blast I might venture a little further into reasons, but politics are involved too, so best I stay clear. Thank you all for an interesting read.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Kennel dweller...mostly
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a fleet of well maintained P3 Orions. These are owned outright by the Commonwealth. The US would, no doubt, be happy to relinquish any hold they might have on the basic airframes, once stripped of any role equipment relating to military ops. This is especially so, when one considers the politics.
Selected aircraft could be sent to the states for tanking, using, say, the RADS II, external tank set up. All the engineering has been done. CASA represents a huge risk. Therefore, the aircraft will have to switch to N reg.
To achieve best operational flexibility, the aircraft will need to be operated privately. This could be financed, by local operators, against long duration contracts to governments.
The L188/P3 offers 12,000 - 13,000 litre capacity, fast ferry speeds (jet speed), more airstrip options, a great climb and beaut slow speed behavior and capability on the drop run, and with a good drop pattern.
Then again, we could just scrap them......
Selected aircraft could be sent to the states for tanking, using, say, the RADS II, external tank set up. All the engineering has been done. CASA represents a huge risk. Therefore, the aircraft will have to switch to N reg.
To achieve best operational flexibility, the aircraft will need to be operated privately. This could be financed, by local operators, against long duration contracts to governments.
The L188/P3 offers 12,000 - 13,000 litre capacity, fast ferry speeds (jet speed), more airstrip options, a great climb and beaut slow speed behavior and capability on the drop run, and with a good drop pattern.
Then again, we could just scrap them......
Last edited by R755; 21st Jan 2020 at 11:42. Reason: readability
he C130s are used for rescue missions, for training, logistics operations, refuelers, special ops and a few others. Here is the breakdown:
- United States Air Force operates 54
- The United States Air National Guard has 26
- The United States Coast Guard flies 6
- The United States Marine Corps also has 6
- And finally the United States Navy flies 8
Dunno where you are getting your figures from but I am getting them from the actual USAF. USAF itself says it has 450 hercs, they grounded a 1/3 of the fleet last year (123) when a cracking problem was found in the J's
Air Mobility Command head Gen. Maryanna Miller ordered 123 of the 450 Total Force C-130 Hercules aircraft to undergo inspection after cracking was found on the lower center wing joint, also known as the "rainbow fitting," of one of the planes. The Air Force observed that the crack could lead to the dismantling of the wing from the aircraft, leading to the partial removal of C-130H and C-130J aircraft from the sky.
Air Mobility Command head Gen. Maryanna Miller ordered 123 of the 450 Total Force C-130 Hercules aircraft to undergo inspection after cracking was found on the lower center wing joint, also known as the "rainbow fitting," of one of the planes. The Air Force observed that the crack could lead to the dismantling of the wing from the aircraft, leading to the partial removal of C-130H and C-130J aircraft from the sky.
We have a fleet of well maintained P3 Orions. These are owned outright by the Commonwealth. The US would, no doubt, be happy to relinquish any hold they might have on the basic airframes, once stripped of any role equipment relating to military ops. This is especially so, when one considers the politics.
S..
S..
Thread Starter
I’m told sea water has no lasting ill effects.
The trouble with all this “lets convert Xyz” stuff is that it’s not as easy as it sounds. .....And of course forget about doing any of it in Australia.
‘As for Orion’s, if RAAF history is anything to go by, they will put a match to them before they allow them to be converted.
The trouble with all this “lets convert Xyz” stuff is that it’s not as easy as it sounds. .....And of course forget about doing any of it in Australia.
‘As for Orion’s, if RAAF history is anything to go by, they will put a match to them before they allow them to be converted.
Last edited by Jabberwocky82; 22nd Jan 2020 at 00:26.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If sea water on a fire is not an issue, however no doubt the greenies would make it one, but given we have a vast coastline stretching very close to the areas in which wild fires are prevalent, would that not make a case for the Russian Be 200 amphib?
It can scoop up 12 tonnes of water in 14 seconds, carry up to 40 passengers, cruises at 300 kts and has a ferry range of 1800 nm. It can operate off a 1.5 meter sea state, 2.5 meters deep.
It is also capable of being configured for other tasks such as search and rescue, marine surveillance or as a freighter.
A series of boat ramps in our more sheltered bays, or expansion of existing ones could provide forward bases for refuelling and servicing.
It can scoop up 12 tonnes of water in 14 seconds, carry up to 40 passengers, cruises at 300 kts and has a ferry range of 1800 nm. It can operate off a 1.5 meter sea state, 2.5 meters deep.
It is also capable of being configured for other tasks such as search and rescue, marine surveillance or as a freighter.
A series of boat ramps in our more sheltered bays, or expansion of existing ones could provide forward bases for refuelling and servicing.
Yeah, cause buying anything Russian has always been a great idea..... 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Orions from the old Aero Union fleet are now being operated by Airstrike and possibly one by Buffalo. The FAA approved design exists and has for a number of years. Their grounding had nothing to do with their lack of airworthiness,Purely business deal. Note that Canada's Airspray, Buffalo and Conair have operated the L!88 as air tankers for number of years. All up about 16-20 L188s and Orions are current so the aircraft must have a few supporters?
However looking at the current conversions most of those operators are heading towards Bae 146 types.and away from Electras.
If the Federal govt decided to go that way it has nothing to do with the RAAF as they will be disposed off via Defense Supply and probably converted in the Airstrike facility in the US?.
Wunwing
However looking at the current conversions most of those operators are heading towards Bae 146 types.and away from Electras.
If the Federal govt decided to go that way it has nothing to do with the RAAF as they will be disposed off via Defense Supply and probably converted in the Airstrike facility in the US?.
Wunwing